Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:11:24 +0930 From: Ian Moore <imoore@picknowl.com.au> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Unix history Message-ID: <200210172011.24942.imoore@picknowl.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20021017010625.GB57421@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <200210162209.37061.imoore@picknowl.com.au> <20021017010625.GB57421@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:36, you wrote: > On Wednesday, 16 October 2002 at 22:09:36 +0930, Ian Moore wrote: > > Hi, > > I was wondering if the commercial Unix variants are really unix 'clon= es' > > in the same way that FBSD & Linux are, > > Well, that's an interesting claim. Linux and BSD are *very* different > inside, though the user interface is similar. Well, maybe Unix-like would be a better way of putting it? :-)=20 > > > or do/did they contain AT&T code? > > As far as I know, all commercial UNIX versions contain AT&T code. > It's possible that things like Tru64 have removed it all. > > > They often seem to be refered to as Unix, but I assume that > > (according the laywers) they are not unix anymore than FBSD is. > > No, according to the lawyers, anything which passes the UNIX standards > compliance suite is UNIX. That includes Microsoft NT and IBM's > OS/390. Technically, commercial UNIX is no more UNIX than FreeBSD, > but that's mainly because of gratuitous differences. > > > If so, it's interesting that AT&T let so many companies copy their > > software! > > Why? They paid dearly for the privilege. I assumed AT&T or the Open Group must have been paid in some way, but non= e of=20 the the Unix histories or discussions about the BSD-AT&T lawsuit that I'v= e=20 read actually said anything about that. > > Greg Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210172011.24942.imoore>